I don't assume anything about anyone here on ET or anywhere else on the net. People have a tendency to let their own light shine through. I don't bash people either. I call them as they are pitched. Holmes has a right to his opinion like everyone else. I respect his right to have them, just refuse to be force fed them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
trend following - quo vadis?
- Thread starter man
- Start date
I don't assume anything about anyone here on ET or anywhere else on the net. People have a tendency to let their own light shine through. I don't bash people either. I call them as they are pitched. Holmes has a right to his opinion like everyone else. I respect his right to have them, just refuse to be force fed them.
i do not want to get between lines. i would appreciate if you could make a step back, since it would make the thread more fun. but sometimes clearing the sky by some thunder enables some views towards heaven (... wow, did i write that?)
actually i think one of the problems of this (net) way of communication is that we go too far much quicker than we would in a personal context. i mean we are very much reduced to the lines we write, and i myself experienced that i got people completely wrong, especially when it comes to humour, especially saracstic or cynical, or when i feel hurt. within faceToFace that might get off the table easier ...
i better shut up or we move to psychology ...
o lord.
actually i think one of the problems of this (net) way of communication is that we go too far much quicker than we would in a personal context. i mean we are very much reduced to the lines we write, and i myself experienced that i got people completely wrong, especially when it comes to humour, especially saracstic or cynical, or when i feel hurt. within faceToFace that might get off the table easier ...
i better shut up or we move to psychology ...
o lord.
Hi Man,
I assume you are asking me how many markets I trade. If not, well... sorry. lol
I generally trade options on the Dow, the SP, the Dollar Index, the 30 Year Bond, Gold, KC coffee periodically and Orange Juice. Usually I only have one or two markets on at a time though. With the exception of Gc, I selected these markets because they have serial options. In the near future I intend to include the grain complex to my list of markets I'll trade.
I assume you are asking me how many markets I trade. If not, well... sorry. lol
I generally trade options on the Dow, the SP, the Dollar Index, the 30 Year Bond, Gold, KC coffee periodically and Orange Juice. Usually I only have one or two markets on at a time though. With the exception of Gc, I selected these markets because they have serial options. In the near future I intend to include the grain complex to my list of markets I'll trade.
Hmmm....
Interesting thoughts. Albeit, I am somewhat biased because it is a single post that Proflogic put up somewhere in ET that was the killer eye opener to anything that is a market. It is truly a killer and permanently put me in never lose territory even in the worst of worst days. I can randomly enter any market (sufficient liquidity just makes it easier) and auto correct myself to immediately go with the ebb/flow (no indicators either although I'm working on adding 2 edgeless perfectly leading as opposed to misleading indicators).
A couple of comments. No doubt there are some very hardworking individuals here and in ET. What really needs to be considered here about Profs work is that it is very clean/crisp/contrite. I have split the market many many ways, to the extent that not a single app can provide what I need so I pushed everything into excel with several Regular Expressions just based off Profs ridiculously crisp trend term/concept. I read every single tick and throwout 99% of them. Oh it's a killer.
There is a really difficult (if your not open minded) thing to comprehend about what Prof does and his disclosure. The fear pointed out is actually the exact opposite. I think it was Holmes that mentions a hypothetical limiting case. The limit he mentions does not exist for reasons that stems from what drives all markets (ie. volume). The real limit of Profs work is actually a case in which not a single person could profit. You would wind up with absolute price convergence (ie. bid/ask not changing, exclusively broker profiting mode). How could this be? You would need the exact number of participants offering at least the same amount being demanded. This is def way OT.
So let's get critical since I so do luv this critical thinking. Prof fully discloses his work. What has to be realized is that by using Profs methodology, you enter (albeit entrances are always the most difficult to stomach) right into the profitable side of the market (ie. right/correct for the orientation folks). The more people that get on at that point, the more right people there are. As the right people become more and more of the majority, the change in price actually accelerates because of volume w.r.t. (with respect to) availability. There are very simple reasons for this phenomena as some see it. Be assured, there is absolutely nothing phenomological about it whatsoever and fortunately it is edgeless. So, in other words, the volume would continue to promote price to continue it's direction.
Any methodology which is not cycle oriented is prone to edge constraints (drawdown/RR/etc...). The point at which market's stop having cycles and start to behave truly random is when Profs method is exploited. For that point to be reached, the market would have long become an unprofitable place for everyone, even the very best of best...
I assume most disagree. Prof, my hats to you. Your post was like the red/blue pill. This vantage of never lose is nearly unexplicable and fortunately irreversible.
Interesting thoughts. Albeit, I am somewhat biased because it is a single post that Proflogic put up somewhere in ET that was the killer eye opener to anything that is a market. It is truly a killer and permanently put me in never lose territory even in the worst of worst days. I can randomly enter any market (sufficient liquidity just makes it easier) and auto correct myself to immediately go with the ebb/flow (no indicators either although I'm working on adding 2 edgeless perfectly leading as opposed to misleading indicators).
A couple of comments. No doubt there are some very hardworking individuals here and in ET. What really needs to be considered here about Profs work is that it is very clean/crisp/contrite. I have split the market many many ways, to the extent that not a single app can provide what I need so I pushed everything into excel with several Regular Expressions just based off Profs ridiculously crisp trend term/concept. I read every single tick and throwout 99% of them. Oh it's a killer.
There is a really difficult (if your not open minded) thing to comprehend about what Prof does and his disclosure. The fear pointed out is actually the exact opposite. I think it was Holmes that mentions a hypothetical limiting case. The limit he mentions does not exist for reasons that stems from what drives all markets (ie. volume). The real limit of Profs work is actually a case in which not a single person could profit. You would wind up with absolute price convergence (ie. bid/ask not changing, exclusively broker profiting mode). How could this be? You would need the exact number of participants offering at least the same amount being demanded. This is def way OT.
So let's get critical since I so do luv this critical thinking. Prof fully discloses his work. What has to be realized is that by using Profs methodology, you enter (albeit entrances are always the most difficult to stomach) right into the profitable side of the market (ie. right/correct for the orientation folks). The more people that get on at that point, the more right people there are. As the right people become more and more of the majority, the change in price actually accelerates because of volume w.r.t. (with respect to) availability. There are very simple reasons for this phenomena as some see it. Be assured, there is absolutely nothing phenomological about it whatsoever and fortunately it is edgeless. So, in other words, the volume would continue to promote price to continue it's direction.
Any methodology which is not cycle oriented is prone to edge constraints (drawdown/RR/etc...). The point at which market's stop having cycles and start to behave truly random is when Profs method is exploited. For that point to be reached, the market would have long become an unprofitable place for everyone, even the very best of best...
I assume most disagree. Prof, my hats to you. Your post was like the red/blue pill. This vantage of never lose is nearly unexplicable and fortunately irreversible.
Quote from makosgu:
Hmmm....
Interesting thoughts. Albeit, I am somewhat biased because it is a single post that Proflogic put up somewhere in ET that was the killer eye opener to anything that is a market. It is truly a killer and permanently put me in never lose territory even in the worst of worst days. I can randomly enter any market (sufficient liquidity just makes it easier) and auto correct myself to immediately go with the ebb/flow (no indicators either although I'm working on adding 2 edgeless perfectly leading as opposed to misleading indicators).
A couple of comments. No doubt there are some very hardworking individuals here and in ET. What really needs to be considered here about Profs work is that it is very clean/crisp/contrite. I have split the market many many ways, to the extent that not a single app can provide what I need so I pushed everything into excel with several Regular Expressions just based off Profs ridiculously crisp trend term/concept. I read every single tick and throwout 99% of them. Oh it's a killer.
There is a really difficult (if your not open minded) thing to comprehend about what Prof does and his disclosure. The fear pointed out is actually the exact opposite. I think it was Holmes that mentions a hypothetical limiting case. The limit he mentions does not exist for reasons that stems from what drives all markets (ie. volume). The real limit of Profs work is actually a case in which not a single person could profit. You would wind up with absolute price convergence (ie. bid/ask not changing, exclusively broker profiting mode). How could this be? You would need the exact number of participants offering at least the same amount being demanded. This is def way OT.
So let's get critical since I so do luv this critical thinking. Prof fully discloses his work. What has to be realized is that by using Profs methodology, you enter (albeit entrances are always the most difficult to stomach) right into the profitable side of the market (ie. right/correct for the orientation folks). The more people that get on at that point, the more right people there are. As the right people become more and more of the majority, the change in price actually accelerates because of volume w.r.t. (with respect to) availability. There are very simple reasons for this phenomena as some see it. Be assured, there is absolutely nothing phenomological about it whatsoever and fortunately it is edgeless. So, in other words, the volume would continue to promote price to continue it's direction.
Any methodology which is not cycle oriented is prone to edge constraints (drawdown/RR/etc...). The point at which market's stop having cycles and start to behave truly random is when Profs method is exploited. For that point to be reached, the market would have long become an unprofitable place for everyone, even the very best of best...
I assume most disagree. Prof, my hats to you. Your post was like the red/blue pill. This vantage of never lose is nearly unexplicable and fortunately irreversible.
Flawed thinking and going against the "natural law" of the markets. (actually of all life)
The natural law states that whenever there is one force dominant then this will eventually kill off the golden goose that feeds it.
When money flows into my pocket then it comes out of someone elses...... As simple as that.
And if one group profits consistently then the losing source will simply dry up.
Keep on dreaming that it will never stop working, the old market is a funny thing for people that have that attitude. Remember LTCM?
Sherlock
Quote from Holmes:
Flawed thinking and going against the "natural law" of the markets. (actually of all life)
The natural law states that whenever there is one force dominant then this will eventually kill off the golden goose that feeds it.
When money flows into my pocket then it comes out of someone elses...... As simple as that.
And if one group profits consistently then the losing source will simply dry up.
Keep on dreaming that it will never stop working, the old market is a funny thing for people that have that attitude. Remember LTCM?
Sherlock
It is evident that you are edge oriented. That is always a flaw to begin with and evidently, difficult to mentally get out of. Our trading exploits cycles, not edges. Can you differentiate the two?
Quote from makosgu:
It is evident that you are edge oriented. That is always a flaw to begin with and evidently, difficult to mentally get out of. Our trading exploits cycles, not edges. Can you differentiate the two?
and when cycles flat-line (likely after it initially fibrillates) it is all over.
and yes I understand in depth cycles.